If meat would now be cheaper: “That would be a slap in the face for us farmers”

Nobody expected that the trained butcher Alois Rainer in his new function as Federal Minister of Agriculture would criticize the consumption of sausages. The fact that the CSU politician would indicate the possibility of falling meat prices in one of his first interviews with the “Bild” came as a surprise.

Even under the predecessor of the new federal government, under Chancellor Merkel, the Borchert Commission of ex-CDU Agriculture Minister Borchert found that livestock farming has to be converted for more animal welfare, and that costs money. Meat, according to the realization back then, becomes more expensive than cheaper.

One proposal from the Commission was to use VAT on animal products. Rainer excluded that.

At the same time, the new Minister of Agriculture has now emphasized in other interviews that they want to work for “more animal welfare” and “animal welfare”. This is “very, very important to him: We have to deal responsibly with the farm animals, and the consumers also want that.”

The discussion about prices and animal husbandry is in full swing. We asked three experts in our “3 on 1” section: Eat cheap meat and still achieve more animal welfare – how could that work? You can find more articles on our section here.

A VAT on meat is the safest way

If meat were getting cheaper, that would be a slap in the face for us farmers. We have usually not received any cost -covering prices for all agricultural animal husbandry for many years. The food prices are high, but the margins are skimmed down in the value chain.

There is a lack of political support for sustainable and income -proof agriculture. The type of animal husbandry is mostly no longer future -proof, says the scientific advisory board for agricultural policy. Animal husbandry has to change and that costs us companies additional money.

The costs for this are estimated at three to five billion euros annually. We farmers need economically long -term perspectives not only for stable conversions, but much more important for the higher ongoing labor costs.

A VAT increase on meat based on the concept of the Borchert Commission, still developed under the Merkel government, is the safest way here. The Borchert recommendations must become the guideline of the new Minister of Agriculture if the conversion is to be succeeded in many courtyards.

No desired image of agriculture

Meat cannot be cheaper and at the same time the animal welfare better. If you want to spread more animal welfare, you have to proceed pragmatically and gradually with the economy.

Specifically, this means: no desired image of agriculture “overlap”, but look at where the farmers stand and work out which steps towards more animal welfare are feasible for as many farmers as possible and affordable for the width of the market.

© Pa/Andreas Franke

A development path should be recorded without losing sight of the market. This enables a gradual development – without unrealistic demands to the pet owners and without a sudden price increase. For example, the economy has succeeded in demonstrating the housing conditions of over 90 percent of the poultry and over 60 percent of the pigs in Germany since 2015.

So far, this approach is the only one through which animal welfare was developed in the width of the market. Therefore, the success formula for the new federal government must also be.

The government wants to “make sustainable consumption easier” – so well

The Federal Government has known itself in the coalition agreement for the financing of more animal welfare. In the draft of the negotiating group, 1.5 billion euros per year were planned.

This is good, because animal welfare causes costs, and agriculture can only perform this social achievement in international competition if it is paid for it. This is only very limited by decisions by consumers in the supermarket and therefore requires public funds for animal welfare premiums.

If meat consumption increases and the domestic production with it, public expenditure on animal welfare would also have to increase. This is not desirable: reduced meat consumption is central to climate and biodiversity protection.

Therefore, another goal of the coalition agreement is important: “We make sustainable consumption easier. ‘” If you take this requirement seriously, you should not polarize nutrition policy, but rather politically design nutritional environments that the sustainable and healthy choice becomes an easy choice.